In this
action, Plaintiff Frederick Banks alleges he has been
unlawfully detained in the District of Ohio, in the context
of criminal proceedings pending in the District of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff has filed a pleading captioned
“Complaint for a Writ of Quo Warranto, Prohibition and
Mandamus” in this district and several other districts.
Plaintiff also asserts a claim for defamation. The Court
denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
because Plaintiff did not provide the requisite financial
information. (Order, ECF No. 3.)

Plaintiff's
complaint is subject to screening under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA) “before docketing, if feasible or
… as soon as practicable after docketing, ”
because Plaintiff is “a prisoner seek[ing] redress from
a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

Following
a review of Plaintiff's complaint, I recommend the Court
dismiss the complaint.

Standard
of Review

The
§ 1915A screening requires courts to “identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim …; or (2) seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Factual
Background

Plaintiff
alleges Defendants have intentionally delayed his criminal
case in the Western District of Pennsylvania, United
States v. Banks, No. 2:15-cr-00168 (W.D. Pa.), such that
he has now been incarcerated for a longer time than the
sentence that could be imposed if he were convicted.
Plaintiff has named as Defendants the presiding district
court judge, the prosecuting attorneys, the FBI, the CIA, the
United States Marshal Service, certain law enforcement
officials, and his appointed counsel. Plaintiff requests
declaratory relief, monetary relief, and an order releasing
him from pretrial detention.

Discussion

The
federal mandamus statute states: “The district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature
of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the
plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. However, with
respect to a writ of mandamus or prohibition directed toward
the activity of a federal district court, such a proceeding
is designed either to compel a court to act or to prevent a
court from acting. In re Blodgett, 502 U.S. 236, 241
n.1 (1992); Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95
(1967); In re Recticel Foam Corp., 859 F.2d 1000,
1001 n.1 (1st Cir. 1988).[1] “Exceptional circumstances”
are required to invoke such an “extraordinary remedy,
” and, significantly, one district court cannot compel
another district court to act under such a writ. Allied
Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35
(1980). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (the All
Writs Act) (“The Supreme Court and all courts
established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary
or appropriate in aidof their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles
of law.”) (emphasis added).

As
recently observed by the District of Hawaii, in which
district Plaintiff also filed:

If Banks seeks an order directing the Western District of
Pennsylvania to try him forthwith, he must pursue such relief
with the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. And the
Third Circuit has already denied Banks a writ of mandamus in
his pending criminal action in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, finding, “[t]o the extent that Banks
alleges that mandamus relief is appropriate in light of the
delay in his criminal case while the question of his
competency is being determined, we disagree that our
intervention is warranted.” In re Banks, 670
F.App'x 54 (3d Cir. 2016) (Mem.) (citing Madden v.
Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996)). The Third
Circuit found that the record in Banks' criminal case, at
least up to November 2016, showed that “the District
Judge and the parties remain engaged in the matter, and the
proceedings have remained active in recent months.”
Id. The District of Hawaii is not a court
“superior” to the Western District of
Pennsylvania, cannot sit as a quasi-appellate court over that
district court, and has no jurisdiction or duty to compel the
Western District of Pennsylvania, its U.S. Attorney and
Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the CIA, the FBI, or their officers
to take any action in Banks' pending criminal action.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Furthermore,
to the extent Plaintiff attempts to assert an action for
violation of his civil rights, presumably pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 389 (1971), even if this Court
has jurisdiction over the defendants, the District of Maine
is ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.